MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416213683 · doi:10.4324/9781003217077

Poststructuralist Methodologies for Physical Activity Research

2025· book· en· W4416213683 on OpenAlexaff
Pirkko Markula, Jim Denison

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDiversity and Impact of Dance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoachingDanceReading (process)Physical activityPower (physics)Actor–network theorySocial network analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drawing on the work of Foucault, Deleuze, and Latour, this book opens up a poststructuralist approach to sport, exercise, and dance research. It examines how to incorporate both articulable expression and visible material elements – theoretically and methodologically – to study the force of the moving body in practice. This book employs critical concepts including the dispositive, assemblage, and actor network to interrogate and advance our understanding of theory and method in research of physical activity practice. It asks what a poststructuralist approach might mean, especially as it concerns themes such as the body in motion, physical activity practice, network of relations, knowledge, and power for physical cultural studies scholars. Presenting in-depth case studies of adult ballet, Barre, Pilates, coaching, ice-hockey, and cross-country running, this book also examines how researchers and practitioners can begin to collaborate to create innovative instruction, training, and coaching practices. This is a fascinating reading for advanced students and researchers working in the physical cultural studies, sociology of sport and exercise, sociology of the body, sports coaching, physical education, or social theory.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.021
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.434
GPT teacher head0.557
Teacher spread0.123 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDiversity and Impact of DanceFrench-language works237,207